Schultz v. Pritts
432 A.2d 1319, 291 Md. 1, 1981 Md. LEXIS 243 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard for determining whether a special exception use should be denied is whether the proposed use at the particular location would have adverse effects above and beyond those inherently associated with such a use, not whether its impact is greater than that of uses permitted as of right in the same zone.
Facts:
- Robert and Ann Pritts entered into a contract to purchase a 2.74-acre tract of land in Carroll County.
- The property was zoned R-20,000, for single-family residential development.
- The Prittses filed an application with the Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals (Board) for a special exception to develop a funeral establishment on the property.
- At a hearing before the Board, Roger Schultz and other local residents (protestants) appeared in opposition to the application.
- During the hearing, the protestants' traffic expert testified about potential adverse traffic impacts from the proposed funeral home.
- The parties agreed that the expert could submit a written memorandum summarizing his data after the hearing concluded.
- Following the hearing, the expert provided his written statement to the Board and to the Prittses' attorney.
Procedural Posture:
- The Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals denied the application filed by Robert and Ann Pritts.
- The Prittses, as appellants, appealed the Board's decision to the Circuit Court for Carroll County.
- The Circuit Court reversed the Board's decision on due process grounds and remanded the case to the Board for a new hearing.
- The protestants, led by Roger Schultz, as appellants, appealed the Circuit Court's remand order to the Court of Special Appeals; the Prittses, as appellees, cross-appealed.
- The Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling on its own motion that the Circuit Court's remand order was not a final, appealable judgment.
- Both the protestants and the Prittses petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court), which granted both petitions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the appropriate standard for denying a special exception use based on adverse traffic effects a comparison between the traffic generated by the proposed use and the traffic that could be generated by uses already permitted as of right in that zone?
Opinions:
Majority - Davidson, J.
No. The appropriate standard to deny a special exception use is whether the proposed use at the particular location would have adverse effects above and beyond those inherently associated with such a use, irrespective of its location. The court rejected the standard from Gowl v. Atlantic Richfield Co., which improperly compared the adverse effects of a special exception use to those of permitted uses. The legislative body, in its zoning scheme, has already determined that permitted uses are acceptable despite potential adverse effects, whereas special exception uses require a more stringent, site-specific analysis. Such uses cannot be developed if at the particular location proposed they have an adverse effect above and beyond that ordinarily associated with them. The court also held that a circuit court's order remanding a case to an administrative agency is a final, appealable judgment, and that no due process violation occurred when the Board considered evidence submitted post-hearing because the parties had acquiesced to the procedure and the evidence was cumulative.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Smith, J.
This opinion concurs that the remand order was final and appealable and that there was no due process violation. However, it dissents from the majority's rejection of the Gowl standard. The dissent argues that it is arbitrary and capricious to deny a special exception for a funeral home based on traffic hazards when permitted uses, such as a church or a college, could generate identical or worse traffic at the same location. The Gowl standard, which compares the impacts of the special use to permitted uses, is a logical and common-sense test. Furthermore, the dissent contends that the evidence of adverse traffic impact presented by the protestants' expert was insufficient and based on flawed assumptions, and therefore lacked the probative value necessary to deny the application.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal standard in Maryland for reviewing special exception use applications and explicitly overrules the precedent set in Gowl. By rejecting the comparison between a special use's impact and that of permitted uses, the court heightens the burden on applicants. The ruling requires a zoning board to focus narrowly on whether the proposed use, at its specific location, creates adverse effects greater than what is inherent for that type of use anywhere in the zone. This precedent limits an applicant's ability to justify their project by showing it is 'no worse' than what is already allowed, thereby strengthening the power of zoning boards to deny applications based on site-specific negative externalities like traffic.
